TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 467
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocument to the assessee. Details of issue and serving of the notices are placed on record by the assessing officer and it is discussed elaborately in assessment order in page No. 2 and 3. Subsequently assessee himself appeared time to time and could not give the satisfactory reply to assessing officer. Accordingly assessing officer completed the assessment adopting best judgement as per section 144 Of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short 'Act'). 3. Since there was no assistance from assessee, assessing officer suo moto made the following additions: A. AO observed that assessee has introduced Rs. 352,000 in its capital account under the proprietary concern M/s Mahalaxmi Motors & Services Station. B. AO observed that assessee has made an addition to fixed assets at Rs. 7,70,458/- before 30.09.2003 and has claimed depreciation@20%. Since assessee could not submit the relevant bills and documents, he disallowed depreciation. C. AO observed that assessee has declared agricultural income of Rs. 72,850/- D. AO observed that assessee has declared in the statement of affairs that assessee has received Rs. 2,14,150/- as marriage gift and presents. In the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he determined the share of the assessee at Rs. 9,167/-. Accordingly he allowed to that extent and balance addition was sustained. c. With regard to ad hoc disallowance of various expenses incurred in the proprietary concerns of the assessee, he observed that certain expenses like insurance, bank charges, interest are verifiable, it is fully verifiable and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business. He directed the assessing officer to allow to that extent. d. All other disallowances were sustained by Ld CIT(A). 5. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before us, raising following grounds of appeal:- Unexplained Capital at Rs. 1,12,500/- a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-H, Thane erred in confirming the Unexplained additional capital of Rs. 1,12,500/-. Sundry Creditors u/s 68 at Rs. 1,71,850/- a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Thane erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of for Unexplained Sundry Creditors at Rs. 1,71,850/- b) On....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hoc disallowance of expenses at Rs. 1,63,374/-. 8. Difference in value of cost of construction of building at Rs. 3,88,000/- a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-II Thane erred in confirming addition made on ground of difference in value of cost of construction. b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) II Thane, erred in not verifying the supporting documents and explanation submitted at the time of hearing at the time of appeal proceedings. The appellant craves, leave to add to, amend, alter or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, if necessary. 6. At the time of hearing, Ld AR brought to our notice all the material facts on the record and he brought to our notice the respective paragraphs of assessment order and appellate order and their respective findings. He also submitted additional evidences in support of purchase and in affidavit of mother-in-law of the assessee. He submitted that since these additional evidences are relevant for the disposal of the appeal and these additional evidences which are relev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment year. We noticed that Ld CIT(A) has sustained addition to the extent of Rs. 1,12,500. Since there is evidence that assessee has encashed the deposit along with interest and there is a established source for the assessee, accordingly we deem it fit to delete the addition sustained by the Ld CIT(A). Accordingly the ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 11. With regard to ground No. 2 & 7, these additions are relating to business income of proprietary concerns run by the assessee. We noticed from the records that assessee has already declared profit in M/s Shree Siddhivinayak Tours of Rs. 85,393.68 against the grass receives of Rs. 10,96,418/- (@ 7.79% of gross receipts) and in M/s Mahalaxmi Motors Rs. 1,50,873.91/- against the commission income of Rs. 4,10,116/- (@ 36.79% of receipts). From the above the profit declared by the assessee which is about 8% from travel business and 36.79% in commission business. When we look at the disallowances made by the assessing officer in M/s Shree Siddhivinayak Tour, we noticed that AO made the addition rejecting outstanding sundry creditors to the extent of Rs. 1,71,850/- and ad hoc disallowance of expenditure to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of assessing officer to verify the genuineness of the submitted bill and if it is found proper, we direct assessing officer to allow the depreciation claimed by the assessee against this car. Accordingly ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 14. With regard to ground No. 4, agricultural income, no new material or any new document submitted before us. We do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of Ld CIT(A). 15. With regard to ground No. 5, marriage gift received in the marriage of the assessee, Ld CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the AO to the extent of Rs. 1,64,150/-. Before us Ld AR submitted a affidavit from mother-in-law of the assessee in which she confirmed that she had given Shagun on the occasion of marriage of her daughter. After considering the affidavit, in our view, in the Indian marriages it is common in marriages to receive and give Shagun or marriage gifts. Therefore we do not see any reason to retain this addition. Accordingly we direct assessing officer to delete this addition. 16. With regard to ground No. 6, marriage expenses, we noticed that AO has estimated the marriage expenses to the extent of Rs. 1 lakh a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hearing by excluding the days for which the lockdown announced by the Government was in force. The relevant observations of this tribunal in the said binding precedent are as under:- 7. However, before we part with the matter, we must deal with one procedural issue as well. While hearing of these appeals was concluded on 7th January 2020, this order thereon is being pronounced today on 14th day of May, 2020, much after the expiry of 90 days from the date of conclusion of hearing. We are also alive to the fact that rule 34(5) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963, which deals with pronouncement of orders, provides as follows: (5) The pronouncement may be in any of the following manners:- (a) The Bench may pronounce the order immediately upon the conclusion of the hearing. (b) In case where the order is not pronounced immediately on the conclusion of the hearing, the Bench shall give a date forpronouncement. (c) In a case where no date of pronouncement is given by the Bench, every endeavour shall be made by the Bench to pronounce the order within 60 days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....account of strict enforcement of health advisories with a view of checking spread of Covid 19. The epidemic situation in Mumbai being grave, there was not much of a relaxation in subsequent lockdowns also. In any case, there was unprecedented disruption of judicial wok all over the country. As a matter of fact, it has been such an unprecedented situation, causing disruption in the functioning of judicial machinery, that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in an unprecedented order in the history of India and vide order dated 6.5.2020 read with order dated 23.3.2020, extended the limitation to exclude not only this lockdown period but also a few more days prior to, and after, the lockdown by observing that "In case the limitation has expired after 15.03.2020 then the period from 15.03.2020 till the date on which the lockdown is lifted in the jurisdictional area where the dispute lies or where the cause of action arises shall be extended for a period of 15 days after the lifting of lockdown". Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in an order dated 15th April 2020, has, besides extending the validity of all interim orders, has also observed that, "It is also clarified that while calculating time for....